An Urgent Call to the CCPDT: Why We Must Prohibit All Aversive Methods

Shock collar with CCPDT logo and bold text reading 'No certification should excuse cruelty. Ban shock collars now.
 

Dear Fellow Certificants,

The CCPDT’s decision to replace the LIMA framework with Dr. Susan Friedman’s Hierarchy of Behavior Change Procedures—while continuing to permit aversive tools such as shock collars, prong collars, and choke chains—represents a fundamental betrayal of the science-based and humane values that once defined our certification. This shift devalues our credential and isolates us from the broader scientific and veterinary communities that have long supported our work. The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB), the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists (ACVB), and the Association of Professional Dog Trainers International (APDT Int’l) have all announced they will no longer refer pet guardians to CCPDT certificants, nor endorse any professional affiliated with organizations that allow aversives. These respected institutions now publicly discourage the use of CCPDT-certified trainers. This isn’t abstract—it’s a direct threat to your reputation, your referrals, and your business.

We are urging you to act now, before the policy takes effect on June 1, 2025. If you remain silent, you risk being viewed as complicit in a system that condones tools and methods proven to cause fear, pain, and stress in dogs. As a certificant, you must demand the reinstatement of LIMA and the removal of all allowances for aversive tools. Take two immediate actions today:

  1. Sign the petition here:
    👉 https://www.change.org/p/certified-trainers-demand-humane-standards-end-ccpdt-s-support-of-harmful-tools

  2. Email your formal opposition to CCPDT leadership using the sample message below. You can send it to:
    📧 info@ccpdt.org

📨 Sample Email to CCPDT:

Subject: Formal Opposition to Policy Change Allowing Aversive Tools

Dear CCPDT Leadership,

As a current certificant, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the recent policy change replacing the LIMA framework with Dr. Susan Friedman’s Hierarchy of Behavior Change Procedures. While presented as a modern alternative, this policy still allows for the use of aversive tools such as prong collars, choke chains, and shock collars—tools that are unequivocally associated with increased fear, stress, and the potential for harm.

This change is not aligned with current scientific consensus or with the ethical standards upheld by the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB), the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists (ACVB), or the Association of Professional Dog Trainers International (APDT Int’l), all of whom have now distanced themselves from the CCPDT. I urge you to immediately reinstate LIMA as the standard for our profession and take a clear and uncompromising stance against aversive tools. The integrity and value of our certification depend on it.

Sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Credential(s)]
[City, State]

Table of Contents

If you are certified by the CCPDT—whether as a CPDT-KA, CPDT-KSA, CBCC-KA, or through any other credential—this message is especially for you. The 2025 policy change replacing the LIMA framework with Susan Friedman’s Hierarchy of Behavior Change Procedures is not just a procedural update. It is a fundamental shift in the ethical compass of our profession. As a certificant, you have a voice and a responsibility.

The endorsement of a hierarchy that retains and regulates the use of aversive methods and tools is contrary to science, to the international consensus in animal welfare, and to standards embraced by an overwhelming majority of veterinary and behavior organizations worldwide. This is a call for you to oppose this regression and stand in support of a truly force-free, non-aversive, science-based training framework—one that unequivocally rejects the use of prong collars, choke chains, shock collars, leash corrections, or any method rooted in pain, fear, or intimidation. Our profession—and the animals we serve—deserve no less.

You may have recently received an email from the CCPDT. In 2025, the Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers (CCPDT) announced that it would retire the Least Intrusive, Minimally Aversive (LIMA) approach and adopt the Hierarchy of Behavior Change Procedures developed by Dr. Susan G. Friedman as its new policy standard [1]. According to the CCPDT, this shift was made to improve clarity, enforceability, and alignment with evolving professional practices [1]. The organization claims this change prioritizes reinforcement-based strategies while offering a practical tool for real-world decision-making.

However, this policy shift represents a pivotal and deeply troubling development in professional training ethics. Friedman’s hierarchy, though packaged as structured and evidence-based, explicitly retains the use of aversive methods—including prong collars, choke chains, and electronic shock devices—under conditions deemed “necessary” by the practitioner [2]. This institutionalizes the use of punishment tools under a model previously criticized for vague terminology, flawed logical assumptions, and a lack of enforceable ethical boundaries [3–5].

While LIMA was historically seen as a step away from unregulated coercive training, its broad interpretations and loopholes undermined its potential. Friedman’s hierarchy, unfortunately, preserves these weaknesses while presenting itself as more enforceable. Rather than removing the ambiguity associated with LIMA, CCPDT’s adoption of Friedman’s hierarchy codifies it into policy, giving credence and permanence to a permissive stance on tools and techniques that have been banned in over 20 countries due to their harm [45]. And while CCPDT emphasizes the importance of data-driven decision-making, Friedman’s hierarchy lacks the safeguards to prevent subjective misuse or ethical drift [3,6].

If CCPDT’s stated mission is to “safeguard dog welfare, protect the public from unqualified practitioners, and empower certificants to exercise ethical judgment” [7], then institutionalizing a hierarchy that retains coercive tools, despite overwhelming evidence of their harm, is incompatible with that mission. What follows is a detailed analysis of why this policy change must be urgently reconsidered—on scientific, ethical, and global policy grounds.

Take Action Now

Take Action and Oppose The CCPDT allowance for Aversive such as Shock Collars, Prong Collars, Punishment and Negative Reinforcement

If you are a CCPDT certificant, now is the time to speak out. Do not assume others will advocate on your behalf. Send a respectful but firm message to CCPDT leadership expressing your opposition to the adoption of Susan Friedman’s Hierarchy and your support for a clear, enforceable, force-free standard that prohibits all aversive methods and tools. Below is a sample letter you can sign your name to and email.  

“Subject: Opposition to the Adoption of Susan Friedman’s Hierarchy and Call for a Fully Force-Free Standard

Dear CCPDT Leadership,

I write to you as a committed CCPDT certificant who has long valued our organization’s dedication to humane, science-based training. However, I must express my profound concern over the recent policy change that replaces the LIMA framework with Susan Friedman’s Hierarchy of Behavior Change Procedures. By allowing for conditional use of aversive tools—including shock collars, prong collars, choke chains, and leash corrections—this new model fundamentally contradicts the ethical and scientific standards many of us embrace.

Over thirty years of empirical research and the consensus of leading veterinary and behavior organizations confirm that methods rooted in pain, fear, or intimidation carry unacceptable risks to animal welfare and fail to offer any genuine advantage over positive reinforcement strategies. The stated intent behind Friedman’s Hierarchy may be to clarify practice and promote thoughtful decision-making, yet in practice, it endorses the perpetuation of forceful or punitive tools. This allowance not only creates wide latitude for subjective interpretations but also directly conflicts with the modern principle of doing no harm in training. As professional trainers entrusted by pet guardians to uphold their animals’ well-being, we must ensure that industry standards categorically prohibit the use of aversive tools.

I urge you, as leaders of our certifying body, to reconsider and reverse this stance. Please act swiftly to reinstate or strengthen a clear, truly force-free framework—one that categorically rejects all aversive techniques and devices, maintains credibility with the scientific literature, and upholds the core mission of safeguarding dog welfare. I believe our community deserves—and indeed demands—training standards that set the highest bar for humane, effective behavior modification. Returning to a policy that unequivocally prohibits prong collars, shock collars, choke chains, leash corrections, and any other pain- or fear-based tools would signal renewed commitment to our own ideals and to the profession’s ethical evolution.

Thank you for considering this viewpoint and for listening to those of us who remain deeply invested in protecting the integrity of force-free training. I respectfully request a response from the CCPDT Board clarifying how you plan to address these concerns and advocating for the most humane standards possible. Our dogs and the pet guardians who rely on us deserve nothing less.

Sincerely,

[Your Name],
CCPDT Certificant

Make your voice heard by emailing:  administrator@ccpdt.org 

Rebuttal to CCPDT’s Policy Change and Susan Friedman’s “Least Intrusive Principle”: A Scientific and Ethical Rebuttal

A sad, anxious dog wearing both a prong collar and shock collar, looking up with pleading eyes. Text overlay reads “Dogs Deserve Better.

Abstract

Susan G. Friedman’s framework for training animals using a “Least Intrusive, Effective Intervention” (LIEI) hierarchy is presented as an ethical advancement. However, this rebuttal demonstrates that LIEI is essentially a reformulation of the Least Intrusive, Minimally Aversive (LIMA) model, one which still retains the conditional use of aversive training tools such as shock collars, prong collars, and choke chains. This model is fundamentally flawed in logic, unsupported by the scientific literature, and out of step with modern welfare ethics. We document the logical fallacies underpinning Friedman’s position (including appeals to nature, false dichotomies, and equivocation), refute the notion of “necessary” aversives using dozens of peer-reviewed studies, highlight the growing list of jurisdictions (now over 20) that have banned such aversive tools, and present the worldwide consensus of veterinary, behavior, training, and animal welfare organizations that endorse positive reinforcement and condemn aversive tools. The evidence shows that aversive tools compromise welfare and offer no efficacy advantage. Humane, force-free training is not only ethical—it is scientifically superior.

Introduction

CCPDT Policy Allows for Punishment and

Susan G. Friedman’s paper “Why Animals Need Trainers Who Adhere to the Least Intrusive Principle” promotes a hierarchy she calls “Least Intrusive, Effective Intervention” (LIEI), a modified version of the “Least Intrusive, Minimally Aversive” (LIMA) framework. The central idea is that animal trainers should begin with the least aversive techniques (such as antecedent arrangement and positive reinforcement), but may escalate to more intrusive, potentially aversive methods (including shock collars, prong collars, or leash corrections) if deemed necessary to achieve behavior change [2]. Friedman argues that this conditional use of aversives can be scientifically and ethically justified if: (1) positive methods have been tried and failed, (2) the escalation follows a formal hierarchy, and (3) the aversive methods are implemented with data collection and professionalism [2]. She frames the LIEI model as a safeguard that balances ethics with effectiveness, ensuring animals are not subjected to harsh methods without justification, and offering a pragmatic middle ground between force-free-only paradigms and unrestricted coercion.

However, this rebuttal demonstrates that Friedman’s LIEI framework is largely a semantic rebranding of the LIMA model. It provides an ethical veneer to aversive tool use without solving the core problems: logical flaws in justification, the slippery slope of “last resort” reasoning in practice, and overwhelming opposition from contemporary science, animal welfare ethics, and legal standards.

In the following sections, we will: (1) identify and analyze key logical fallacies in Friedman’s argumentation, (2) show that the LIEI model is functionally identical to LIMA with no substantive protection against the use of coercion, (3) present peer-reviewed scientific evidence demonstrating the welfare risks and lack of efficacy of aversive tools, and (4) summarize the positions of global professional organizations and jurisdictions that categorically oppose aversive training methods. The conclusion is clear: aversive methods are neither necessary nor ethically defensible in any training framework that purports to promote welfare and efficacy. The future of humane training lies in force-free, science-based practices that exclude coercion entirely.

Logical Fallacies in Friedman’s Argumentation

Despite Friedman’s careful framing, several elements of her argument rely on identifiable logical fallacies. These weaknesses undermine her defense of aversive methods under the LIEI hierarchy:

  • Appeal to Nature. Friedman notes that aversive stimuli (and negative reinforcement processes) occur in the natural world, implying that using them in training can be acceptable. This argument is fallacious: just because something occurs in nature does not mean it is ethically or practically desirable in training. (Arsenic and predation are “natural,” yet we do not consider them humane or acceptable.) Emphasizing that animals can learn via negative reinforcement in nature obscures the fact that our ethical duty in training is to minimize stress and risk [3]. What matters is not whether aversives occur in nature, but whether we should intentionally apply them in practice – and overwhelming scientific consensus says we should not.

  • False Dichotomy. Friedman presents a false dichotomy between “force-free-only” paradigms and completely “unrestricted” use of coercion, positioning her hierarchy as a reasonable middle ground [2]. This is a misleading binary. In reality, virtually all modern training paradigms encourage a spectrum of techniques within force-free practice (from management and enrichment to differential reinforcement) and do not advocate unlimited coercion even if one rejects aversives. It is entirely possible to reject prong or shock collars while still retaining effective behavior modification strategies. The choice is not between either aversives-always or aversives-never; the true comparison is between evidence-based humane methods versus methods proven unnecessary and harmful. By framing the debate as one of extremes, the LIEI model creates a straw man and avoids addressing why any deliberate use of pain or fear is justified when humane alternatives exist.

  • Equivocation on “Least Intrusive.” The term “least intrusive” is itself open to broad interpretation – a critical flaw carried over from LIMA. In Friedman’s hierarchy, a mild leash correction and an electric shock can both be defended as “least intrusive” options depending on the trainer’s personal judgment. As critics have pointed out, the humane hierarchy’s broad labels make it easy for a practitioner to claim that a highly intrusive action (e.g. a shock at any level) is on the same ethical level as a mild timeout [3]. By equating very different interventions under the vague banner of “least intrusive necessary,” the model creates an ethical gray zone. This ambiguity enables justification of severe aversives so long as the trainer believes other options have been exhausted. In effect, the hierarchy’s terminology can be used to legitimize virtually any aversive tool by an argument that it was the “necessary” minimal intrusion – an obviously subjective determination.

In summary, Friedman’s argument contains logical inconsistencies that weaken her case. By appealing to what is “natural,” setting up a false choice between extremes, and using ambiguous terminology, the LIEI framework provides intellectual cover for practices that science and ethics have moved beyond.

“Necessary” Aversives and the Slippery Slope in Practice

Even if one grants the premise that aversive methods should be reserved for last resort, in practice this standard is difficult to enforce and often leads to premature or excessive use of aversives. Multiple studies and industry surveys indicate that trainers (and pet guardians) frequently jump to aversive tools without fully exhausting force-free alternatives [8]. One survey in France found that 75% of pet guardians who used an e-collar tried two or fewer alternative techniques before resorting to shock [9]. This illustrates how a loose “last resort” guideline can be interpreted in an overly permissive way. LIEI, like LIMA before it, provides a structured rationale that can easily be misused to justify bringing out the shock collar or choke chain as soon as a pet guardian or trainer feels that positive reinforcement is “not working.” Under the hierarchy framework, a practitioner inclined to use aversives can claim that other methods failed (often a subjective or premature conclusion) and that applying a prong or shock is therefore justified as the least intrusive effective option. In effect, the model’s allowances can become a convenient loophole through which aversive methods enter routine practice.

Empirical evidence bears out this concern. Trainers do not always adhere to an exhaustive force-free process even when professing to follow humane hierarchies. In one study, more than a quarter of pet guardians reported using punitive methods (like hitting or intimidation) as a first-line response to behavior issues [8]. In the French study mentioned, most e-collar users had not attempted a systematic reward-based training plan or consulted a behavior professional before using shock [9]. These patterns reflect what animal behavior experts have called the “ladder effect” – practitioners “climb the ladder” of a so-called humane hierarchy and end up using aversive interventions because the original intervention ‘did not work’ [6]. The very presence of aversive tools on the menu, even ostensibly as a last resort, can bias trainers toward using them, especially if they lack extensive expertise in advanced force-free techniques or if they get frustrated with slow progress. In short, what is labeled as “necessary” is highly subjective. The hierarchy model does not include objective safeguards to ensure that an aversive truly is necessary – it is left to individual judgment, which studies show often errs on the side of expedience over ethics.

LIEI thus suffers from the same ethical drift that plagued LIMA. What begins as a principled stance to use aversives only in extreme cases can, over time, devolve into fairly routine use of those aversives under the justification that earlier steps were “attempted” (even if only briefly or ineffectively). This slippery slope is not a hypothetical concern; it is documented in the field. As one analysis put it, “behavior consultants [may] ‘climb the ladder’… and continue using pain, fear, and intimidation” once they have that justification [6]. Without strict, enforceable criteria, hierarchies that include aversives end up relying on personal restraint – something that cannot be guaranteed across a broad population of trainers with varying education levels and pressures from clients. This is precisely why truly force-free standards remove the option of aversives entirely, rather than leave that door open.

Scientific Evidence of Aversive Method Harm and Lack of Benefit

Dozens of peer-reviewed studies have rigorously examined the effects of aversive training methods on dogs’ behavior and welfare. Collectively, the scientific literature strongly indicates that aversive tools (shock, prong, choke, etc.) pose significant risks to animal welfare and do not confer any special benefit in training outcomes [10–15]. Aversive training often suppresses not just the target behavior but the dog’s overall behavioral repertoire, potentially leading to a state of learned helplessness or “shut down.” For example, in one early study, dogs subjected to repeated unpleasant stimuli showed elevated cortisol and stress-related behaviors even outside of training sessions [11]. Another experiment found that dogs trained with electronic shock collars displayed clear signs of stress (e.g. lowered body posture, lip-licking, yawning) and anxiety during training, without any improvement in learning compared to control groups [12]. A recent large-scale study in 2020 reported that pet dogs trained with aversive methods (like leash jerks or e-collars) had higher stress, more pessimistic emotional states, and on average poorer welfare than dogs trained with purely reward-based methods [10]. Surveys of pet guardians likewise have linked the use of confrontational or punishment-based techniques to an increase in fear and aggression in their dogs [13,14]. In one of the largest correlational studies to date, dogs whose pet guardians used prong or shock collars and other aversives were significantly more likely to exhibit undesired behaviors such as aggression or anxiety-related behaviors [13]. Notably, these undesirable outcomes of aversive use often appear without any corresponding improvement in obedience or behavior compliance.

To illustrate the lasting emotional fallout: Schilder and van der Borg (2004) observed that dogs trained with electric shock collars in a guard dog context continued to show stress and fear signals long after the training session had ended – even at just the sight of their handler or being in the training area [16]. These dogs, having been shocked in previous sessions, would cower or avoid their handlers, indicating a generalized fear response. The authors concluded that the use of shocks can lead to enduring associations of the handler or environment with pain, undermining the human-dog relationship [16]. Similarly, veterinary behaviorist Karen Overall has reported that dogs subjected to frequent punishment can appear “calm” simply because they have suppressed normal behavior, often out of a state of anxiety or learned helplessness – a state sometimes misinterpreted by trainers as the dog being “fixed” or obedient [17]. In reality, the dog’s underlying welfare is poor; the absence of outward behavior is due to fear of further punishment rather than true learning or confidence. This kind of emotional shut-down is a well-recognized consequence of coercive training [17].

From a learning perspective, numerous studies have found no advantage to using aversives when compared to positive reinforcement methods. Perhaps most famously, Cooper et al. (2014) conducted a controlled trial comparing remote shock collar training to reward-based training for common obedience tasks. The result: there were no significant differences in training efficacy or obedience outcomes between the e-collar group and the positive reinforcement group, but the dogs trained with e-collars exhibited significantly more stress-related behaviors during training [18]. In a follow-up study, China et al. (2020) confirmed that using positive reinforcement techniques achieved the same or better results (specifically in recall training) and did so more quickly on average, even when professional e-collar trainers were administering the shocks in a “humane” manner [19]. Hiby et al. (2004), in a survey of over 300 pet guardians, found that dogs trained with predominantly reward-based methods had fewer behavior problems and were more obedient than dogs whose pet guardians used punitive methods [20]. And a 2017 systematic review by Ziv concluded that there is no credible evidence that aversive training is more effective than positive training, but considerable evidence that it raises stress and aggression and can worsen a dog’s behavior and relationship with humans [21]. In short, the purported efficacy benefits of aversive tools are illusory – studies consistently show equal or better results can be achieved with humane methods, minus the many risks.

Furthermore, aversive tools carry tangible physical risks in addition to behavioral fallout. Choke and prong collars can cause significant physical injury. The pressure from a choke chain can damage the delicate structures of a dog’s neck – the trachea, esophagus, blood vessels, and even the spine – especially if the dog pulls or if corrections are applied jerkily. Veterinary reports have documented cases of fainting, neck tissue bruising, prolapsed eyes, and even collapsed windpipes resulting from choke collars in extreme cases [22]. Prong collars, with their metal spikes, can scratch or puncture the skin on a dog’s neck; over time, they often lead to the development of scar tissue and callouses on the neck. In some instances, improper use of prongs has caused infections and deep puncture wounds hidden under the fur [22]. Veterinary experts warn that repeated use of such collars can also injure the thyroid gland and salivary glands due to chronic local trauma [23]. One clinical study by Matthiesen et al. (1996) found evidence of vertebral damage and tracheal injury in dogs with a history of long-term choke collar use, linking these tools to permanent anatomical harm [24]. Electronic shock collars, for their part, can cause burns on the skin (especially if left on too long or used at high levels) and have been known to malfunction, delivering excessive stimulation. Even in normal use, shock devices can induce acute stress responses that carry cardiovascular risks for dogs with heart conditions. In summary, the use of aversive implements is not only unnecessary from a training standpoint, but poses unacceptable risks to the animal’s physical well-being [22,23,24].

After reviewing the extensive scientific evidence, the verdict is unequivocal: aversive training methods degrade welfare without providing any unique benefit. Dogs trained with force-free methods learn just as reliably (often more reliably), all while maintaining a positive emotional state and trust in their handlers [18–21]. In contrast, dogs trained with aversives may obey out of fear of pain, but at the cost of increased stress, potential aggression, and damage to the human-animal bond. There is simply no scientific or ethical justification for incorporating pain and fear into dog training in the 21st century.

(Conclusion of Section Three) The collective research in behavioral science and veterinary medicine overwhelmingly supports a force-free approach. Aversive methods are unnecessary, harmful, and counterproductive. Ethical training means choosing strategies that both work and promote the animal’s welfare – criteria that aversive-based techniques fail to meet. Humane training is not only a moral choice, but a scientifically superior one.

Global Professional and Policy Stance Against Aversive Training

Around the world, veterinary and animal behavior authorities have taken a clear stand against the use of pain and fear in training. Their position statements uniformly emphasize that humane, reward-based methods should be the standard. Below is a summary of key organizations and their official positions:

  • American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB) – In its 2021 position statement, AVSAB explicitly advises that “only reward-based training methods should be used for all dog training, including the treatment of behavior problems.” It warns that aversive techniques have damaging effects and offer no added benefit compared to positive methods [25].
  • American College of Veterinary Behaviorists (ACVB) – As of 2020, the ACVB states that aversive methods pose physical and psychological risks to animals. The college promotes force-free, fear-free training techniques and discourages any use of methods that cause pain or fear [26].
  • American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) – The AAHA’s 2015 Canine Behavior Management Guidelines explicitly condemn tools such as prong, choke, and shock collars due to their potential to harm the trust between dog and guardian, increase fear and anxiety, and damage the human-animal bond [27]. The AAHA instead advocates for positive reinforcement and humane behavior modification strategies in veterinary referrals and practice.
  • Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) – In 2015 the CVMA issued a position strongly discouraging training methods that cause fear, pain, or anxiety. The CVMA urges all trainers and veterinarians to rely on reward-based methods as the default, as these are safer and more humane [28].
  • British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) – The BSAVA in 2018 recommended against all electronic shock collars, citing the risk of pain, distress, and long-term behavioral problems. It called for training to focus exclusively on reward-based techniques and stated that there is no place for electronic aversive devices in modern pet training [29].
  • British Veterinary Association (BVA) – The BVA has publicly lobbied for a complete ban on electric shock collars. In 2018 the BVA noted that even at low settings, shock collars can cause pain, fear, and “serious negative welfare consequences,” with no evidence of unique benefit [30]. The BVA supports legislation to prohibit such devices and encourages positive training approaches instead.
  • New Zealand Veterinary Association (NZVA) – The NZVA (2018) explicitly rejects the use of electronic shock collars for either training or containment. It notes that subjecting animals to electric shocks or other aversives violates fundamental animal welfare principles, equating the use of these collars to “hitting or intimidating an animal” [31]. The NZVA and New Zealand’s SPCA have been campaigning for these devices to be banned.
  • European Society of Veterinary Clinical Ethology (ESVCE) – In a 2018 position paper (published in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior), the ESVCE reviewed the available evidence and concluded there is “no credible justification” for using electronic shock collars in training [32]. The ESVCE endorsed exclusively reward-based training and urged professionals to lead by example in rejecting aversive tools.

In addition to veterinary bodies, leading professional training and behavior organizations have also established policies opposing aversive methods:

  • Pet Professional Guild (PPG) – The PPG, an international organization of force-free training professionals, has since 2017 maintained a strict policy against the use of pain, fear, or intimidation. The PPG’s guiding principles and position statements make clear that any technique that causes the animal to feel fear or pain is unacceptable. They actively campaign through initiatives like the Shock-Free Coalition to educate pet guardians and ban devices like shock collars [33].
  • Association of Professional Dog Trainers (APDT) – Historically, APDT allowed a range of methods, but in 2022 the APDT (International) took a much stronger stand. In a public statement, APDT declared that tools such as shock collars are “unnecessary, cruel, and unacceptable.” They encourage members and all trainers to commit to force-free methods and have supported efforts to legally restrict aversive devices [34].
  • Canadian Association of Professional Dog Trainers (CAPDT) – Prior to 2020, this Canadian association force-free training professionals had adopted bans on several severely aversive tools and techniques – including prong and e-collars in its “STOP List” (Severe and Outdated Procedures List).  The STOP list is included in CAPDT’s Code of Ethics which also recommends following the Humane Hierarchy and LIMA principles – however, with the agreement of Dr. Susan Friedman the Humane Hierarchy’s level “Positive Punishment” used in our Code INCLUDES a hard no on introducing prong and e-collars to training plans).
  • International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC) – The IAABC’s Code of Ethics (2020) requires members to “refrain from using techniques or tools that create fear or pain.” The IAABC has officially aligned itself with the movement toward force-free training and, in 2025, an IAABC statement went so far as to call the LIMA framework “not endorsed by credible behavior science” and “pseudoscientific by definition” because it permits aversive techniques under certain conditions [5]. The IAABC and its members advocate for modern, humane behavior change strategies and have been outspoken critics of frameworks that justify aversives.
  • Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors (APBC, UK) – The APBC’s Code of Ethics (2020) prohibits members from using any training methods or equipment that may cause physical or mental discomfort. The APBC emphasizes evidence-based, reward-based interventions and considers the use of punitive techniques as professional misconduct [37].
  • Animal Behaviour and Training Council (ABTC, UK) – The ABTC’s Code of Practice (2020) similarly endorses only positive training methods. The ABTC and its accredited practitioners commit to “do no harm” in training and discourage the use of positive punishment or negative reinforcement except in rare, controlled circumstances where absolutely necessary (which, in practical terms, the organization finds almost never to be the case) [38].

The stance of these organizations sends a clear message: the professionals and experts who understand animal behavior best have moved past aversive methods. Training built on trust and positive reinforcement is not a fringe idea – it is the endorsed standard of major training and veterinary groups worldwide.

Finally, many of the world’s leading animal welfare charities and humane societies have also condemned aversive training and, in some regions, successfully pushed for legal bans on certain devices:

  • RSPCA (UK) – The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has long campaigned against devices like shock and prong collars. The RSPCA’s 2023 position statement on dog training calls for a ban on training methods and equipment that cause pain or distress. Their experts describe prong and choke collars as “severe and unnecessary” and have provided evidence of injuries caused by these devices [23]. The RSPCA was instrumental in advocating for the recent ban on shock collars in England.
  • ASPCA (USA) – The American SPCA’s official training position (2015) states that punishment-based training methods are “less humane and less effective” and advises pet guardians to avoid choke, prong, or shock collars [39]. The ASPCA provides public education encouraging positive reinforcement training and explicitly opposes training tools that cause pain.
  • HSUS (USA) – The Humane Society of the United States in its 2021 guide “Humane Dog Training 101” warns that aversive collars (shock, prong, choke) are inhumane and can increase fear and aggression in dogs [40]. The HSUS advocates for reward-based training and has been lobbying for statewide bans on shock collars in the U.S. (so far, several states and municipalities have introduced restrictions, and the HSUS continues to push for broader reforms).
  • American Humane (USA) – In 2021, American Humane (the country’s first national humane organization) called for a total end to the use of shock collars on pets. They described such methods as “barbaric” and not in line with the ethical standards expected for companion animal care [41].
  • Dogs Trust (UK) – Dogs Trust, the UK’s largest dog welfare charity, actively campaigned for the ban on electronic shock collars, which the UK government passed in 2023. Dogs Trust has consistently declared shock collars unnecessary and harmful, and welcomed the new law as a victory for humane training [42].
  • Blue Cross (UK) – The Blue Cross animal charity advises pet guardians against the use of any aversive training devices. In 2022, the Blue Cross publicly supported moves to ban shock collars and continues to educate pet guardians on kinder training methods [43].
  • PETA – People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals takes a strong stance against choke, prong, and shock collars, highlighting the physical injuries and psychological trauma they can cause. PETA has documented cases of collapsed tracheas, spinal damage, and other injuries from these collars and runs public awareness campaigns to inform pet guardians of the dangers [22].
  • BC SPCA (Canada) – The British Columbia SPCA released an article in 2022 listing “Five Reasons to Avoid Shock Collars,” citing the risk of pain, fear, aggression, and the availability of better alternatives [44]. The BC SPCA and other Canadian humane societies prefer to focus on positive training and many have training classes that strictly ban aversive equipment on their premises.

This near-universal consensus among welfare and professional organizations has also been reflected in legislation. Over the last two decades, an increasing number of countries and local jurisdictions have banned or strictly regulated the use of certain aversive training tools, particularly electric shock collars. Below is a non-exhaustive list of notable examples (with year of implementation) [45]:

  • Germany (2006): National law forbids the use of devices that administer electric shocks to dogs. (Prong collars are also explicitly restricted or prosecutable under animal welfare laws in several German states) [45].
  • Norway (2008, reinforced 2018): Complete ban on remote-controlled shock collars under the Animal Welfare Act. Earlier temporary permits for e-collar use were phased out, effectively ending their legality nationwide [45].
  • Denmark (2019): Ban on the sale, use, and even possession of electronic shock collars. (Prong collars remain legal in Denmark, but their use may fall under general animal cruelty statutes if they cause injury or suffering) [45].
  • Netherlands (2019): Ban on the use and sale of electronic training collars in public. The Netherlands classifies the unsupervised use of shock collars as an offense under its animal welfare regulations [45].
  • Slovenia (2007): Prohibits the use of any training devices that inflict pain, including electronic (shock) collars and pinch/prong collars [45].
  • Portugal (2018): Outlaws the use of electric shock devices on pets. The law unequivocally prohibits training or controlling animals through such harmful stimuli [45].
  • Belgium – Flanders (2027): The Flemish Region of Belgium passed a law scheduled to take full effect by 2027 that bans e-collar use. (Wallonia and Brussels regions have also strongly discouraged e-collar use and are considering similar measures) [45].
  • Ireland (2023 ongoing): The government has been in public consultation to ban electronic shock collars, prong collars, and other aversive devices. As of 2023, legislation is in progress to enact this ban, reflecting growing consensus in Ireland against these tools [45].
  • England (2024): A ban on electronic shock collars (for both dogs and cats) was passed in 2023, taking effect in 2024 after years of campaigning by welfare groups and veterinary associations [45]. (Wales had already banned shock collars in 2010, and Scotland issued guidance effectively outlawing them in 2018.)
  • Scotland (2018): While Scotland did not pass a specific statute, it implemented strict guidance in 2018 deeming the use of shock collars and prong collars as contrary to animal welfare, effectively allowing prosecution under existing cruelty laws if such devices are used [45].
  • Quebec Canada (2013): The province of Quebec, Canada, implemented a ban on the use of shock collars and prong collars for dogs. According to the Quebec Ministry of Agriculture’s enforcment guidelines, the use of shock and prong collars is prohibited as they are considered devices that can cause pain or interfere wth a dog’s breathing (Global News,2014 (Several other cities in Canada have followed with their own bylaws on aversive collars.)
  • Australia: Legislation on shock collars is state-specific. New South Wales (2008) banned the sale and use of remote shock collars (with an exception for invisible-fence containment systems under strict conditions) [45]. South Australia has a complete ban on using electronic collars for training (e-collars cannot be used at all, under any circumstance) [45]. In other states like Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, and the Northern Territory, shock collars remain legal to use but are increasingly restricted (for example, Victoria requires a veterinary behaviorist prescription/oversight for e-collar use, and Tasmania has banned prong collars in 2022 under its animal welfare regulations) [45]. There is active discussion in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) about prohibiting shock collars, and public pressure continues to mount for nationwide reform.
  • New Zealand: No formal ban on aversive collars exists yet at the national level. However, both the New Zealand Veterinary Association and the New Zealand SPCA have openly called for a ban on shock collars, and Parliament has considered the issue in debates. Public and professional pressure in New Zealand is growing to follow the example of other countries in outlawing these devices [45].

It should be noted that the United States at the federal level has no ban on training devices, but as mentioned, leading organizations like the HSUS and the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) continue to advocate for restrictions [45]. A number of U.S. states have introduced bills to ban or regulate shock collars in recent years (though none have become law as of this writing), and certain local jurisdictions and training facilities have set their own rules prohibiting such equipment.

The trend is unmistakable: the world is turning away from pain-based training methods. Countries and regions that have reviewed the scientific evidence and welfare implications are choosing to legally prohibit tools that were once considered normal. These legal bans and policy statements are grounded in the very same research that the CCPDT leadership claims to have reviewed – yet those authorities have reached a starkly different conclusion than CCPDT’s new policy. Where humane laws and ethical standards are moving forward, the CCPDT’s hierarchy proposal represents a step backward.

Conclusion

The CCPDT’s 2025 adoption of Friedman’s hierarchy of behavior change procedures, in lieu of a truly force-free standard, stands in direct opposition to current scientific knowledge, modern ethical standards, and global training policy trends. The logical fallacies in the hierarchy’s defense cannot withstand scrutiny: natural occurrence of behavior is no excuse for inducing pain, there is no middle ground that justifies aversives when humane methods suffice, and vague guidelines will not prevent misuse by those inclined toward quick fixes. Empirical evidence resoundingly shows that aversive training methods are detrimental to animal welfare and unnecessary for achieving training goals. Around the world, experts and governments are recognizing this and acting on it. By contrast, the CCPDT’s policy change would normalize the continued use of coercive tools under a misleading veneer of “humane hierarchy.”

We urge the CCPDT to reconsider and reverse this policy. As a certifying body claiming to hold the highest standards for professional dog trainers, the CCPDT must align with the overwhelming consensus of the veterinary and behavior community: that force-free training is the only acceptable standard. The path forward for our profession is one of ever-improving humane practices, not a revival of outdated and harmful techniques dressed up in new terminology. Trainers do not need a license to shock or hurt; they need education and support to implement effective, welfare-friendly methods. The dogs and clients we serve trust us to use our knowledge ethically. It is time for the CCPDT to truly honor its mission to safeguard dog welfare and protect the public – by unequivocally rejecting the use of fear and pain in training. Let us move toward a future where minimally aversive isn’t even a question, because our commitment is to be not aversive at all.

Take Action Now

Take Action and Oppose The CCPDT allowance for Aversive such as Shock Collars, Prong Collars, Punishment and Negative Reinforcement

If you are a CCPDT certificant, now is the time to speak out. Do not assume others will advocate on your behalf. Send a respectful but firm message to CCPDT leadership expressing your opposition to the adoption of Susan Friedman’s Hierarchy and your support for a clear, enforceable, force-free standard that prohibits all aversive methods and tools. Below is a sample letter you can sign your name to and email.  

“Subject: Opposition to the Adoption of Susan Friedman’s Hierarchy and Call for a Fully Force-Free Standard

Dear CCPDT Leadership,

I write to you as a committed CCPDT certificant who has long valued our organization’s dedication to humane, science-based training. However, I must express my profound concern over the recent policy change that replaces the LIMA framework with Susan Friedman’s Hierarchy of Behavior Change Procedures. By allowing for conditional use of aversive tools—including shock collars, prong collars, choke chains, and leash corrections—this new model fundamentally contradicts the ethical and scientific standards many of us embrace.

Over thirty years of empirical research and the consensus of leading veterinary and behavior organizations confirm that methods rooted in pain, fear, or intimidation carry unacceptable risks to animal welfare and fail to offer any genuine advantage over positive reinforcement strategies. The stated intent behind Friedman’s Hierarchy may be to clarify practice and promote thoughtful decision-making, yet in practice, it endorses the perpetuation of forceful or punitive tools. This allowance not only creates wide latitude for subjective interpretations but also directly conflicts with the modern principle of doing no harm in training. As professional trainers entrusted by pet guardians to uphold their animals’ well-being, we must ensure that industry standards categorically prohibit the use of aversive tools.

I urge you, as leaders of our certifying body, to reconsider and reverse this stance. Please act swiftly to reinstate or strengthen a clear, truly force-free framework—one that categorically rejects all aversive techniques and devices, maintains credibility with the scientific literature, and upholds the core mission of safeguarding dog welfare. I believe our community deserves—and indeed demands—training standards that set the highest bar for humane, effective behavior modification. Returning to a policy that unequivocally prohibits prong collars, shock collars, choke chains, leash corrections, and any other pain- or fear-based tools would signal renewed commitment to our own ideals and to the profession’s ethical evolution.

Thank you for considering this viewpoint and for listening to those of us who remain deeply invested in protecting the integrity of force-free training. I respectfully request a response from the CCPDT Board clarifying how you plan to address these concerns and advocating for the most humane standards possible. Our dogs and the pet guardians who rely on us deserve nothing less.

Sincerely,

[Your Name],
CCPDT Certificant

Make your voice heard by emailing: administrator@ccpdt.org

References

  1. Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers (CCPDT). Announcement to Certificants – Adoption of Hierarchy of Behavior Change Procedures (2025). CCPDT Board Communication, 2025. (Policy change announcement describing replacement of LIMA with Friedman’s hierarchy and its intended benefits.)

  2. Friedman SG. Why Animals Need Trainers Who Adhere to the Least Intrusive Principle: Improving Animal Welfare and Honing Trainers’ Skills. Behavior Works, 2022. (Comprehensive article outlining the LIEI hierarchy; asserts that aversives may be used if necessary after positive methods fail.)

  3. Steele T. Why We Need to Modify the Humane Hierarchy. Academy for Dog Trainers Blog. June 14, 2018. (Analyzes the Humane Hierarchy’s shortcomings; notes that vague terms allow justification of severe aversives as “least intrusive,” enabling misuse.)

  4. Dances with Dogs (Blog). What is a LIMA-based Dog Trainer? October 16, 2023. (Discusses ambiguity in “least intrusive, minimally aversive” terminology and how different trainers interpret it inconsistently, leading to continued use of shock, prongs, etc.)

  5. International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC). Official Social Media Statement on LIMA Framework. IAABC Facebook Page, 2025. (States that LIMA is “not a framework endorsed by credible behavior science” and calls it “pseudoscientific… because it incorporates unsupported, aversive techniques.”)

  6. Steinker A, Tudge N, et al. The Many Faces of Behavior Myopia: Recognizing the Subtle Signs. BARKS from the Guild. BARKS Blog, Dec 2014. (PPG article; notes that practitioners often “climb the ladder” of a humane hierarchy and end up using aversives when initial methods seem to fail, illustrating ethical drift in application.)

  7. Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers (CCPDT). Standards of Practice and Code of Ethics. Updated March 2025. (CCPDT Code of Ethics document; Introduction emphasizes preventing poor welfare outcomes, protecting the public from unqualified practitioners, and empowering certificants to exercise ethical judgment.)

  8. Herron ME, Shofer FS, Reisner IR. Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesirable behaviors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2009;117(1–2):47–54. (Owner survey; found many use confrontational/aversive methods as a first response, often eliciting aggression from dogs.)

  9. Masson S, et al. Electronic training devices: Discussion on the pros, cons and usage guidelines of remote static pulse systems in dog training. Journal of Veterinary Behavior. 2018;25:71–75. (French study; reported 75% of e-collar users tried ≤2 alternative methods before using shock, highlighting premature resort to aversives.)

  10. Vieira de Castro AC, et al. Does training method matter? Evidence for the negative impact of aversive-based methods on companion dog behavior and welfare. PLoS One. 2020;15(12):e0225023. (Experimental study showing dogs trained with aversive techniques displayed more stress behaviors and a pessimistic bias in cognitive testing compared to dogs trained with positive reinforcement.)

  11. Beerda B, et al. Chronic stress in dogs subjected to social and spatial restriction. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 1998;58(3–4):365–381. (Found that dogs exposed to repeated aversive stimuli and stressors showed physiological and behavioral signs of chronic stress, such as elevated cortisol and reduced exploratory behavior.)

  12. Schalke E, et al. Stress symptoms caused by training collars. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2007;105(4):369–380. (Demonstrated that dogs trained with electronic shock collars, even at lower settings, exhibited significant stress responses – e.g. vocalization, redirected aggression, fear – especially when the shocks were unpredictable.)

  13. Casey RA, et al. Human directed aggression in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris): Occurrence in different contexts and risk factors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2014;152:52–63. (Identified that the use of punitive training methods by owners was a significant risk factor for dogs showing aggression toward humans.) (Note: Casey et al. 2021 in Sci Reports also found aversive training correlates with increased problem behaviors.)

  14. Polsky RH. Can aggression in dogs be elicited through the use of electronic pet containment systems? Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 2000;3(4):345–357. (Discusses cases where electronic shock containment systems and collar shocks led to unexpected aggression in dogs, and theorizes on the learned association between shock and elements in the environment or people.)

  15. Rooney NJ, Cowan S. Training methods and owner-dog interactions: Links with dog behavior and learning ability. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2011;132(3–4):169–177. (Owner survey study; found that dogs trained with more punishment were less playful and exhibited more problematic behaviors, whereas dogs trained with positive methods had better recall and obedience.)

  16. Schilder MB, van der Borg JAM. Training dogs with help of the shock collar: Short and long term behavioural effects. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2004;85(3–4):319–334. (Found that even outside of the training context, police dogs that had been trained with shock collars showed signs of fear and aversion toward their handler, suggesting long-term emotional effects of shock training.)

  17. Overall KL. Manual of Clinical Behavioral Medicine for Dogs and Cats. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2013. (Overall notes that dogs subjected to frequent or unpredictable punishment may exhibit learned helplessness, becoming inhibited and appearing “calm” due to shutting down – a state often misinterpreted by trainers as the desired behavior change.)

  18. Cooper JJ, et al. The welfare consequences and efficacy of training pet dogs with remote electronic training collars in comparison to reward based training. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e102722. (Controlled study: showed no difference in obedience outcomes between e-collar training and positive reinforcement training, but e-collar dogs exhibited more stress behaviors. Owner-reported efficacy was high in all groups, indicating shock provided no advantage.)

  19. China L, Mills DS, Cooper JJ. Efficacy of dog training with and without remote electronic collars vs. a focus on positive reinforcement. Front Vet Sci. 2020;7:508. (Follow-up Lincoln Univ. study: found that positive reinforcement training was equally if not more effective, and achieved results with fewer sessions compared to trainers using e-collars. Concluded that e-collars are unnecessary for recall training in pet dogs.)

  20. Hiby EF, Rooney NJ, Bradshaw JWS. Training methods and owner-dog interactions: Links with dog behavior and obedience. Animal Welfare. 2004;13(1):63–69. (Surveyed dog owners; dogs trained with predominantly reward-based methods had fewer problem behaviors. Conversely, the use of punishment was associated with an increased incidence of problematic behaviors such as aggression or fear.)

  21. Ziv G. The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs – A review. Journal of Veterinary Behavior. 2017;19:50–60. (Review of 17 studies: concluded there is no evidence that aversive training is more effective than positive methods, and considerable evidence that it can cause stress, anxiety, and aggression. Recommends professionals avoid aversives due to welfare risks and lack of training benefit.)

  22. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). What are the dangers of using choke and prong collars? PETA FAQ – Dogs, 2020. (Details numerous injuries caused by choke and prong collars: whiplash, fainting, spinal cord paralysis, crushed trachea or larynx, dislocated neck bones, esophageal bruising, and other trauma. Emphasizes that these collars can cause serious physical damage and that positive alternatives are safer.)

  23. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA UK). Position on Dog Training Methods – RSPCA Policy Statement, 2023. (The RSPCA opposes training methods likely to cause pain, suffering or fear. Veterinarians associated with the RSPCA note that choke and prong collars can cause severe neck injuries and pain, including cervical spine damage and collapsed windpipe in extreme cases. RSPCA supports bans on such equipment.)

  24. Matthiesen F, Schöps A, Radinger K. Traumatic injuries caused by choke chains in dogs. Tierärztliche Praxis. 1996;24(3):295–301. (Report documenting cases of vertebral damage, tracheal and laryngeal trauma in dogs due to long-term use of choke chains. Provides clinical evidence linking choke collars to serious anatomical injuries in the neck.)

  25. American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB). AVSAB Position Statement on Humane Dog Training, 2021. (Recommends only reward-based training for all dogs. Cautions that aversive methods risk causing aggression, fear, and do not yield better results. Endorsed by leading veterinary behaviorists.)

  26. American College of Veterinary Behaviorists (ACVB). Position on Aversive Training Methods, 2020. (ACVB and its diplomates promote fear-free training and consider the risks of aversive methods (physical injury, psychological stress) to far outweigh any purported benefit. Encourages veterinarians and trainers to employ humane techniques exclusively.)

  27. American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA). Canine and Feline Behavior Management Guidelines, 2015. (These guidelines, authored by veterinary experts, explicitly advise against tools like shock, prong, and choke collars because of their potential to cause fear and erode the human-animal bond. Supports positive reinforcement and behavior modification through humane means.)

  28. Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA). Position Statement: Dog Training Methods – Humane and Effective, 2015. (States that training methods should minimize fear, anxiety, and pain. CVMA strongly discourages the use of aversive equipment and techniques and endorses reward-based training as the preferred humane approach.)

  29. British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA). Position Statement on Electronic Training Devices, 2018. (BSAVA: Recommends against the use of electronic shock collars and similar devices due to welfare concerns. Highlights risks of pain and stress. Supports UK legislative efforts to ban e-collars.)

  30. British Veterinary Association (BVA). BVA Policy – Electric Shock Collars, 2018. (BVA policy calling for a ban on electric pulse training devices. Cites evidence that even low-level shocks can cause stress and that positive training methods are effective alternatives. Emphasizes that causing pain is unacceptable when other methods exist.)

  31. New Zealand Veterinary Association (NZVA). NZVA Position Statement: Aversive Training Techniques, 2018. (Asserts that tools like shock collars have no place in modern animal training. The NZVA compares shock/prong collars to physical abuse (“hitting or intimidating”) and supports only reward-based training. Advocates for a prohibition on sale/use of shock collars in NZ.)

  32. European Society of Veterinary Clinical Ethology (ESVCE). ESVCE Position on the use of Shock Collars in Companion Dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior. 2018;25:76–77. (A consensus statement by European veterinary behavior specialists concluding that shock collars present unnecessary risks to dog welfare and should be banned. It finds no compelling justification for their use given available humane methods.)

  33. Pet Professional Guild (PPG). Position Statement on the Use of Shock in Animal Training, 2017. (The PPG unequivocally opposes electronic shock collars, citing extensive evidence of physical and psychological harm. PPG’s policy and advocacy campaigns aim to educate and legislate to eliminate the use of shock, prong, and choke collars in pet training.)

  34. Association of Professional Dog Trainers (APDT). Press Release: APDT Supports Humane Training – Shock Collars Unnecessary, 2022. (APDT International announcement indicating a shift toward a force-free stance. Describes shock collars as cruel and unnecessary and encourages members to commit to positive training. Applauds regulatory efforts to curb aversives.)

  35. Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers (CCPDT). Electronic Collar Statement, 2022. (Prior CCPDT policy statement that allowed e-collar use only as a last resort under very strict conditions. It emphasized exhausting all other options first and warned of the risks associated with electronic collars. Illustrates the CCPDT’s earlier acknowledgment of aversive tool drawbacks.)

  36. International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC). Code of Ethics, 2020. (Requires that members “do no harm” in their training and behavior work. The IAABC code explicitly directs professionals to avoid methods that cause undue fear or pain, effectively disallowing shock, prong, or choke collar use by its members.)

  37. Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors (APBC). APBC Code of Ethics, 2020. (States that members must not use or recommend techniques or equipment that may cause physical or mental suffering to animals. The APBC’s ethics code thereby prohibits the use of aversive training devices and underlines commitment to humane methods.)

  38. Animal Behaviour and Training Council (ABTC). Code of Professional Conduct, 2020. (The ABTC code mandates that practitioners use only techniques compatible with animal welfare – i.e. primarily positive reinforcement. It advises that positive punishment and negative reinforcement be avoided except possibly in extremely rare and controlled circumstances, and never in ways that compromise welfare.)

  39. American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). General Training Statement, 2015. (The ASPCA advocates for reward-based training and cautions pet guardians that punishment-based techniques are less humane and carry many risks. It provides guidelines for finding trainers who use humane methods.)

  40. Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Humane Dog Training 101 – Tools and Tips, 2021. (HSUS guide for pet guardians: strongly warns against choke, prong, and shock collars as cruel and counterproductive. Encourages management and positive reinforcement for behavior issues. HSUS continues to campaign for ending sales of shock collars.)

  41. American Humane. American Humane Position Statement on Aversive Training Devices, 2021. (American Humane calls devices like shock collars “barbaric” and advocates for their elimination in dog training. Emphasizes that humane, reward-based training is the gold standard and that aversive devices are inconsistent with the nation’s values for pet care.)

  42. Dogs Trust (UK). Shock Collars Ban Press Release, 2023. (Dogs Trust outlines the success of the campaign to outlaw shock collars in England. Describes shock collars as unnecessary and harmful, and celebrates the legislation that bans their use and sale.)

  43. Blue Cross (UK). Training Dogs: Positive Methods Only, 2022. (Blue Cross advice article; educates pet guardians on why aversive training techniques should be avoided. Explains the fallout of punitive methods and guides pet guardians to use treats, toys, and praise to train, thereby safeguarding welfare.)

  44. BC SPCA (British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). Five Reasons to Avoid Shock Collars, 2022. (BC SPCA web article listing key arguments against shock collars: they cause pain and stress, can induce aggression, can malfunction, are unnecessary for training, and that humane training achieves better results. Part of public outreach to discourage aversive tools.)

  45. Pet Professional Guild (PPG). Global Shock Collar Ban Educational Report, 2023. (Summary report compiled by the PPG listing countries, states, and cities that have banned or restricted shock collars and other aversive training devices. Includes references to legislation in Europe, UK, Australia, North America, and ongoing advocacy efforts worldwide.)